I will preface the following rant by first stating my personal political ideology. In short, I would consider myself fiscally conservative and socially progressive or liberal. In other words, I’m a voter without a party that I can passionately support. I have over the years voted for all federal political parties at one time or another. I first voted in 1989 when the main election issue was Free Trade with the United States and I supported Brian Mulroney. In 1993, when abolishing the GST was the central focus, I once again voted conservative. Free Trade and the GST are the single biggest reasons why our economy thrived and generated massive budget surpluses for most of the past 20 years, until Harper was elected. It is rare to see politicians implement programs that they know are important and beneficial despite the risk of being unpopular or not getting re-elected. Brian Mulroney did just that and more recently so did Dalton McGuinty. His harmonized sales tax in Ontario is not popular and McGuinty will likely not get re-elected as a result. It was the right thing to do. However, an exhaustive GST/HST rant will have to wait for another day.
I remained a small ‘c’ conservative up until the point when “conservative” started to mean the polar opposite of my social beliefs. The association with fundamentalist Christianity, anti-abortion protests, rich people complaining about social programs and taxes, racist comments, and economic policies catering only to “traditional” families with stay-at-home moms was all too much for me. It is an ideology based on two premises: protecting the wealthy and a longing for the nuclear family of the 1950’s. It’s not about a healthy and thriving economy and it is certainly not about lending a helping hand to the less fortunate.
A handful of the conservative party’s central policies will easily prove my point. First of all, cutting the GST from 7% to 5% was strictly a vote buying exercise. That is $12 billion dollars per year of lost revenue for the federal government at a time when it is once again running huge deficits. Every economist in the country will tell you that cutting consumption taxes has virtually no benefit to the macro economy. If stimulating the economy and creating jobs was the motivation then that $12B could have been used in many more effective ways such as cuts to EI premiums and corporate taxes or incentives for investment. The list of policies that could stimulate the economy is huge but cutting the GST does not make that list. The simple reason is because retailers often close the price gap, eating into that 2% after-tax price reduction but more importantly because the evidence is clear that a 1% or 2% decline in the total cost of some goods will not motivate consumers to shop more. Ask yourself, have you been going to the malls more often and spending more as a result of the GST cut? Not likely. At the end of the day, it is just a $12B gift to taxpayers, a true vote buying program if there ever was one. If a gift is what you wanted well give yourself a pat on the back; however, I want a lot more bang than that for $12B per year.
Next we have the fitness tax credit. This will cost $500 million per year and it will arguably not result in a single person being healthier. Think about this, if you have a child and you currently cannot afford to send them to a summer camp or join a sports team will you suddenly be able to afford it if you now get a very small percentage of it back as a tax credit in a years time. NO! The people that are in a position to benefit from this tax credit are likely already spending thousands per year on summer camps and sports teams. So in other words, rich families get money back for what they are already doing and poor families still can’t afford to enroll. Not a single child will be more active as a result of this $500 million program. If curbing child obesity was truly the motivation then the $500 million would have been spent on recreational facilities in low income areas or granted to organizations that work directly with that specific health issue. But NO, that was not the point. It was just another vote buying program with little or no tangible benefit.
Lastly we have income splitting. The taxable income of one spouse can be transferred to the other in order to pay less overall income tax as a family. When implemented, this program is expected to cost $5 billion per year and benefit only one small segment of society, high-income earners married to stay-at-home parents who have young children. So what is the benefit of this program to the overall economy or jobs or healthcare or childcare or poverty or anything else? Zip…. Nada…. Nothing. It is just another vote buying scheme. It is not an economic policy but rather a social engineering program intended to incent woman to stay at home and take care of their children. The program can be summed up in one efficient sentence. If you adhere to Harper’s 1950-esque utopia of the working man and stay-at-home mom with a litter of children then you get a big fat cheque.
So when you boil it all down, you begin to see that the conservative party is not truly fiscally conservative given their vote buying and high deficits but rather they are socially conservative based on their nuclear family incentives. Now that Harper’s majority will have unfettered power we will see them socially creep further to the right. They have a vision for how society should be constructed and will aggressively but covertly push that ideology while disguising it as economic policy. The Harper government won a majority last night based largely on a perception that they will be steady and safe stewards of the economy when in reality they have cut government revenue recklessly and have nothing to show for it but massive deficits. Economic decisions should be based on benefits to the macro economy; while social decisions should be based on the collective desires of the nation on what they consider a just society. Unfortunately, Harper’s economic policy is based on vote buying and his social policy is inspired by re-runs of Happy Days.
Sad times indeed.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Same Sex Marriage.....much ado about nothing
Yesterday, at its annual convocation ceremony, Ryerson University in Toronto bestowed an honorary degree upon internationally renowned ethicist Dr. Margaret Somerville. A normally irrelevant event to everyone other than the graduating students and their families. However, Dr. Somerville opposes gay marriage, as well as other similarly divisive issues such as stem-cell research and late term abortion.
What a fiasco this has turned out to be and everyone looks ridiculous. Ryerson invites Dr. Somerville for an honorary degree without being aware of her controversial views. Upon learning of her much publicized opinions, the school provides a response intended to keep everyone happy while simultaneously upsetting all involved. Essentially their response can be translated to mean, we messed up but there isn’t anything we can do about it now. Uninviting her or expressing a strong defence of free speech would have been preferrable to riding the fence. So the convocation proceeded with an unwanted guest. How lovely.
I feel sorry for the graduating students who have been discarded on one of the most important days of their lives. They witnessed protests outside and some heckling of Dr. Somerville inside as well as existing faculty, standing behind Dr. Somerville, turning their backs in protest as she began to speak. The whole situation is very regrettable no matter your view on the issue of same sex marriage.
That said, I have yet to hear a reasonably credible objection to same sex marriage. Not even one single phrase that gave me pause for a moment. I have always been able to see the potential for downside to something I support or at the very least relate to the other side’s viewpoint. However, not on this issue. Other than hate and homophobia, the basis for opposition to same sex marriage is often similar to this extraction from today’s Globe and Mail: “Dr. Somerville rejected critics' labelling of her as homophobic. She said she fully supports gays' rights to civil union but opposes same-sex marriage. It erodes the role marriage plays in child-rearing and can increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents, she said.”
This is a baseless argument for so many reasons. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that a child growing up in a healthy same sex couple household is any less likely to be happy and well adjusted than a child with a father and a mother. I often hear statistics about children in nuclear families being better off than otherwise. I have a healthy scepticism about the validity of the data; however, assuming it is true, it is still irrelevant to this debate. The comparison is against all other domestic situations such as single parent homes, divorced couples and orphaned children. It does not specifically compare healthy two parent relationships strictly on sexual orientation. As well, how is adoption by gay parents going to increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents. Are gay parents more opposed to allowing their adopted children the opportunity to seek their biological parents? I would like to see the study that development that conclusion.
From the child’s perspective, the only difference between heterosexual parents and gay parents is the stigma, hatred and bigotry associated with being gay. In the absence of such homophobia, there would be no objection to same sex marriage and there would likewise not be any psychological issues for children with gay parents. Interesting that the bigots can use bigotry as one of their arguments.
Secondly, Dr. Somerville and many other like minded people claim to fully support civil unions but oppose same sex marriage. This is the “give them the same rights but call it something else” argument. This is proposed as a compromise. I cannot reconcile this aspect of Dr. Somerville’s opinion with the first part above. If you are willing to allow civil unions that presumably have all the same rights and obligations as a marriage then how does that not equally erode the role marriage plays in child-rearing and increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents…unless same sex couples in a civil union will be prevented from adopting children. In which case, this so called compromise does not come anywhere near equality. All the “non-homophobic” arguments against same sex marriage are exactly the same for civil unions since civil unions are the basis for all the legal rights and obligations in Canada. The only difference is a monopoly on use of the word marriage which is a ridiculously selfish stance, “You are not the same as me so you can’t use my word.”
Lastly, we have the biblical arguments. Homosexuality is an abomination, it is unnatural, etc. Clearly, those with this view do so from a literal interpretation of the bible and are wholly opposed to marriage, civil unions or parenting for gay couples. They view homosexuality as something that can be reversed through therapy. Of course, a literal interpretation of the bible would have me going to hell for eating lobster in Nova Scotia last week. Fundamentalist Christians see the Bible as a human operators manual, albeit one where they can pick and choose the chapters and verses that apply while ignoring the rest. Dr. Somerville does not appear to fall into this group or she would not be publicly riding the “civil union” compromise. The Bible is an interesting historical piece of literature that documents the societal views of various individuals at the time it was written but it is not literally applicable two thousand years later (or should I say 1,650 years later).
So it still all comes down to homophobia. There simply is no argument against same sex marriage that isn’t based on either the bigotry associated with a literal interpretation of the bible or the hypocrisy of Dr. Somerville’s “call it something else” view. The reality is that someday we will look back on these trying times for gays and lesbians in much the same fashion that we look back on the debate about whether or not women should be allowed to vote or whether blacks should drink from the same water fountain as whites or inter-racial marriage. It is called progress and there perpetually exists an aspect of society that is needlessly afraid of change. The institution of marriage will not fall apart, if anything it will be enhanced. Children will not be disadvantaged, in fact, gay teens will have new hope of acceptance and validation.
History will show that the Dr. Somerville’s of the world are no different on this issue than Alabama Governor George Wallace was on segregation in 1963…….wrong! Unfortunately, it will take a generation to prove it.
What a fiasco this has turned out to be and everyone looks ridiculous. Ryerson invites Dr. Somerville for an honorary degree without being aware of her controversial views. Upon learning of her much publicized opinions, the school provides a response intended to keep everyone happy while simultaneously upsetting all involved. Essentially their response can be translated to mean, we messed up but there isn’t anything we can do about it now. Uninviting her or expressing a strong defence of free speech would have been preferrable to riding the fence. So the convocation proceeded with an unwanted guest. How lovely.
I feel sorry for the graduating students who have been discarded on one of the most important days of their lives. They witnessed protests outside and some heckling of Dr. Somerville inside as well as existing faculty, standing behind Dr. Somerville, turning their backs in protest as she began to speak. The whole situation is very regrettable no matter your view on the issue of same sex marriage.
That said, I have yet to hear a reasonably credible objection to same sex marriage. Not even one single phrase that gave me pause for a moment. I have always been able to see the potential for downside to something I support or at the very least relate to the other side’s viewpoint. However, not on this issue. Other than hate and homophobia, the basis for opposition to same sex marriage is often similar to this extraction from today’s Globe and Mail: “Dr. Somerville rejected critics' labelling of her as homophobic. She said she fully supports gays' rights to civil union but opposes same-sex marriage. It erodes the role marriage plays in child-rearing and can increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents, she said.”
This is a baseless argument for so many reasons. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that a child growing up in a healthy same sex couple household is any less likely to be happy and well adjusted than a child with a father and a mother. I often hear statistics about children in nuclear families being better off than otherwise. I have a healthy scepticism about the validity of the data; however, assuming it is true, it is still irrelevant to this debate. The comparison is against all other domestic situations such as single parent homes, divorced couples and orphaned children. It does not specifically compare healthy two parent relationships strictly on sexual orientation. As well, how is adoption by gay parents going to increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents. Are gay parents more opposed to allowing their adopted children the opportunity to seek their biological parents? I would like to see the study that development that conclusion.
From the child’s perspective, the only difference between heterosexual parents and gay parents is the stigma, hatred and bigotry associated with being gay. In the absence of such homophobia, there would be no objection to same sex marriage and there would likewise not be any psychological issues for children with gay parents. Interesting that the bigots can use bigotry as one of their arguments.
Secondly, Dr. Somerville and many other like minded people claim to fully support civil unions but oppose same sex marriage. This is the “give them the same rights but call it something else” argument. This is proposed as a compromise. I cannot reconcile this aspect of Dr. Somerville’s opinion with the first part above. If you are willing to allow civil unions that presumably have all the same rights and obligations as a marriage then how does that not equally erode the role marriage plays in child-rearing and increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents…unless same sex couples in a civil union will be prevented from adopting children. In which case, this so called compromise does not come anywhere near equality. All the “non-homophobic” arguments against same sex marriage are exactly the same for civil unions since civil unions are the basis for all the legal rights and obligations in Canada. The only difference is a monopoly on use of the word marriage which is a ridiculously selfish stance, “You are not the same as me so you can’t use my word.”
Lastly, we have the biblical arguments. Homosexuality is an abomination, it is unnatural, etc. Clearly, those with this view do so from a literal interpretation of the bible and are wholly opposed to marriage, civil unions or parenting for gay couples. They view homosexuality as something that can be reversed through therapy. Of course, a literal interpretation of the bible would have me going to hell for eating lobster in Nova Scotia last week. Fundamentalist Christians see the Bible as a human operators manual, albeit one where they can pick and choose the chapters and verses that apply while ignoring the rest. Dr. Somerville does not appear to fall into this group or she would not be publicly riding the “civil union” compromise. The Bible is an interesting historical piece of literature that documents the societal views of various individuals at the time it was written but it is not literally applicable two thousand years later (or should I say 1,650 years later).
So it still all comes down to homophobia. There simply is no argument against same sex marriage that isn’t based on either the bigotry associated with a literal interpretation of the bible or the hypocrisy of Dr. Somerville’s “call it something else” view. The reality is that someday we will look back on these trying times for gays and lesbians in much the same fashion that we look back on the debate about whether or not women should be allowed to vote or whether blacks should drink from the same water fountain as whites or inter-racial marriage. It is called progress and there perpetually exists an aspect of society that is needlessly afraid of change. The institution of marriage will not fall apart, if anything it will be enhanced. Children will not be disadvantaged, in fact, gay teens will have new hope of acceptance and validation.
History will show that the Dr. Somerville’s of the world are no different on this issue than Alabama Governor George Wallace was on segregation in 1963…….wrong! Unfortunately, it will take a generation to prove it.
Monday, May 15, 2006
We Create The Men Who Kill Women
Women kill men, men kill women, sons kill parents, mothers kill babies, drug dealers kill other drug dealers, psychopaths kill randomly, and so on and so on. Murders are front page news every time they happen no matter the victim, no matter the reason. Neighbours are interviewed and always say they never saw it coming, “he seemed so nice, a little quite, but nice…”
We collectively lament the loss of an innocent life. We collectively ask how this could happen, who could do this, why, why, why. We voyeuristically watch the aftermath in silence as law enforcement hunts for a fugitive or the victim’s family stands in the rain outside a funeral service. Our attention is focused. Then the next playoff game, celebrity sighting or political scandal captures the headlines and the opportunity to prevent a tragedy from reoccurring is once again lost.
We return to our mundane lives in the comfort that it will never happen to us. We are content to expect that someone else will fix the problem. We choose to believe that we did nothing to contribute to the cause and have no capacity to prevent it from happening again. However, there is very much we can do and it does not require ten hours a week of community volunteering, or marching on parliament hill, or any financial contribution. Although, it does require courage and the strength of convictions as well as some honest self-assessment of our own attitudes.
Are all manners of violence preventable? Idealistically we could say there was always something that could have been done but realistically and unfortunately people will be murdered. Would stronger gun laws and mandatory minimum sentences have prevented gang killings in Toronto last year? Maybe, maybe not. Would improved funding for psychiatric care have prevented Jeffrey Arenburg from hunting down CJOH sports broadcaster Brian Smith? Maybe, maybe not.
However, one type of murder is highly preventable. Homicide by men who see their wives and girlfriends as possessions rather than as individuals with rights and choices. Men in our society are conditioned from an early age to sexually and domestically view women as objects. The pattern of domestic violence is extremely well documented and very predictable but yet nothing seems to ever change.
Roger Turmel once said if his wife ever left him, he'd be certain to kill her. Last week his wife Louise attempted to do just that and so he killed her before turning the gun on himself. Just a month prior, Frank Mailly left a note indicating his intention to kill his estranged wife Francine and their three children - Jessica, 12, Brandon, 9, and Kevin, 6. On Sunday, April 2nd he did just that before killing himself. These are premeditated acts of violence and we must look in the mirror when asking the question: Why do men kill wives and girlfriends when faced with the reality of a failed relationship?
Simplistically, the answer is because society condones the attitudes that lead to these actions. We are all outraged when someone is murdered but we aren’t outraged by the barrage of stereotypes and societal expectations that tell us that men have some sort of divine right to keep women where we want them – as cooks, cleaners, child bearers and sexual satisfiers. Oh, but if they can manage that and a career then all the power to them. We are only outraged by the result but not the cause: patriarchy.
David Warren is a popular columnist for the Ottawa Citizen newspaper. Last month, as part of an Easter special, the Citizen ran a multi-issue series highlighting stories about forgiveness that made for interesting reading and provoked some introspective contemplation. David Warren contributed a love story from his youth.
“From my parents’ good example, I had conventional ideas about love and marriage…” Translation: Gender stereotypes and gender expectations were well ingrained in my psyche long before my first relationship ever began.
He went on to introduce the first love of his life, a brief relationship ending as many do in youth - quickly and suddenly: “Within a few months the spell was lifting -- at least from her. In a moment, I was dumped, and she ran off with another boy…For thirty years, not a day passed, in which I did not remember my wound, and in which the wound didn’t influence my behaviour….Some years later I was told by someone who should know that X had disappeared or died under suspicious circumstances. I remember thinking, coldly, to myself, “She did to another man what she did to me, and got herself murdered.” Yet even though I now thought of her as dead, my wound did not heal.” Translation: It should come as no surprise to anyone if a woman rejects a man and subsequently gets herself killed.
This article was published between the time Turmel and Mailly committed the type of murder that Warren expected to be his X’s fate. The main difference between Warren’s statements and the actions of Roger Turmel and Frank Mailly is the result, but not their beliefs. All three men believed they were entitled to possess these women and that these women were not individuals free to live separate lives and make independent choices. Turmel and Mailly killed their wives. Warren let his contempt fester for thirty years before finding Catholicism and the strength to forgive her for wronging him. He forgave her for being an individual rather than an object for his possession. The Roger Turmel’s and Frank Mailly’s of the world have their beliefs validated by the David Warren’s of the world.
So we collectively have a choice: continue blaming the shooter while ignoring the root cause of male violence against women or looking in the mirror to understand how we facilitate the violence. A casual joke or seemingly innocent opinion or comment leads to the next guy making more harmful statements and/or jokes leading to the next guy maliciously degrading a woman leading to the next guy raping a woman leading to the next guy killing his wife. We have all played the role of David Warren somewhere along that spectrum which facilitates the final consequence.
Telling men and boys it is not okay to hit women is grossly insufficient. Previous generations believed likewise that “real men do not hit women”; however, the carnage continues unabated. Men and boys need to be taught that women are not possessions, women are not sexual objects, and women are not inferior. Men and boys need to be taught that their own actions, even if perceived to be innocent and harmless, facilitates more harmful actions by other men. First we need to acknowledge how each of us contributes to the problem, then teach our sons differently while holding other men accountable for even the most innocent of statements and actions. We live in a culture that allows women to be victims of male violence. It can be stopped but it takes courage and conviction from those men who know better.
Resource:
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen
We collectively lament the loss of an innocent life. We collectively ask how this could happen, who could do this, why, why, why. We voyeuristically watch the aftermath in silence as law enforcement hunts for a fugitive or the victim’s family stands in the rain outside a funeral service. Our attention is focused. Then the next playoff game, celebrity sighting or political scandal captures the headlines and the opportunity to prevent a tragedy from reoccurring is once again lost.
We return to our mundane lives in the comfort that it will never happen to us. We are content to expect that someone else will fix the problem. We choose to believe that we did nothing to contribute to the cause and have no capacity to prevent it from happening again. However, there is very much we can do and it does not require ten hours a week of community volunteering, or marching on parliament hill, or any financial contribution. Although, it does require courage and the strength of convictions as well as some honest self-assessment of our own attitudes.
Are all manners of violence preventable? Idealistically we could say there was always something that could have been done but realistically and unfortunately people will be murdered. Would stronger gun laws and mandatory minimum sentences have prevented gang killings in Toronto last year? Maybe, maybe not. Would improved funding for psychiatric care have prevented Jeffrey Arenburg from hunting down CJOH sports broadcaster Brian Smith? Maybe, maybe not.
However, one type of murder is highly preventable. Homicide by men who see their wives and girlfriends as possessions rather than as individuals with rights and choices. Men in our society are conditioned from an early age to sexually and domestically view women as objects. The pattern of domestic violence is extremely well documented and very predictable but yet nothing seems to ever change.
Roger Turmel once said if his wife ever left him, he'd be certain to kill her. Last week his wife Louise attempted to do just that and so he killed her before turning the gun on himself. Just a month prior, Frank Mailly left a note indicating his intention to kill his estranged wife Francine and their three children - Jessica, 12, Brandon, 9, and Kevin, 6. On Sunday, April 2nd he did just that before killing himself. These are premeditated acts of violence and we must look in the mirror when asking the question: Why do men kill wives and girlfriends when faced with the reality of a failed relationship?
Simplistically, the answer is because society condones the attitudes that lead to these actions. We are all outraged when someone is murdered but we aren’t outraged by the barrage of stereotypes and societal expectations that tell us that men have some sort of divine right to keep women where we want them – as cooks, cleaners, child bearers and sexual satisfiers. Oh, but if they can manage that and a career then all the power to them. We are only outraged by the result but not the cause: patriarchy.
David Warren is a popular columnist for the Ottawa Citizen newspaper. Last month, as part of an Easter special, the Citizen ran a multi-issue series highlighting stories about forgiveness that made for interesting reading and provoked some introspective contemplation. David Warren contributed a love story from his youth.
“From my parents’ good example, I had conventional ideas about love and marriage…” Translation: Gender stereotypes and gender expectations were well ingrained in my psyche long before my first relationship ever began.
He went on to introduce the first love of his life, a brief relationship ending as many do in youth - quickly and suddenly: “Within a few months the spell was lifting -- at least from her. In a moment, I was dumped, and she ran off with another boy…For thirty years, not a day passed, in which I did not remember my wound, and in which the wound didn’t influence my behaviour….Some years later I was told by someone who should know that X had disappeared or died under suspicious circumstances. I remember thinking, coldly, to myself, “She did to another man what she did to me, and got herself murdered.” Yet even though I now thought of her as dead, my wound did not heal.” Translation: It should come as no surprise to anyone if a woman rejects a man and subsequently gets herself killed.
This article was published between the time Turmel and Mailly committed the type of murder that Warren expected to be his X’s fate. The main difference between Warren’s statements and the actions of Roger Turmel and Frank Mailly is the result, but not their beliefs. All three men believed they were entitled to possess these women and that these women were not individuals free to live separate lives and make independent choices. Turmel and Mailly killed their wives. Warren let his contempt fester for thirty years before finding Catholicism and the strength to forgive her for wronging him. He forgave her for being an individual rather than an object for his possession. The Roger Turmel’s and Frank Mailly’s of the world have their beliefs validated by the David Warren’s of the world.
So we collectively have a choice: continue blaming the shooter while ignoring the root cause of male violence against women or looking in the mirror to understand how we facilitate the violence. A casual joke or seemingly innocent opinion or comment leads to the next guy making more harmful statements and/or jokes leading to the next guy maliciously degrading a woman leading to the next guy raping a woman leading to the next guy killing his wife. We have all played the role of David Warren somewhere along that spectrum which facilitates the final consequence.
Telling men and boys it is not okay to hit women is grossly insufficient. Previous generations believed likewise that “real men do not hit women”; however, the carnage continues unabated. Men and boys need to be taught that women are not possessions, women are not sexual objects, and women are not inferior. Men and boys need to be taught that their own actions, even if perceived to be innocent and harmless, facilitates more harmful actions by other men. First we need to acknowledge how each of us contributes to the problem, then teach our sons differently while holding other men accountable for even the most innocent of statements and actions. We live in a culture that allows women to be victims of male violence. It can be stopped but it takes courage and conviction from those men who know better.
Resource:
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
